Re: Radioactive boyscout--Is it a literary hoax?

From: dave e (dgenglish_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/12/04 

Date: 12 Jun 2004 05:35:48 -0700

"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message news:<YtSxc.26295$1c4.23548@fed1read06>...
> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
> news:2ipv6sFq2psnU11@uni-berlin.de...
> > dave e wrote:
>
> > > You have a low standard of evidence if you believe that the mere
> > > existence of an atomic energy merit badge proves that a particular boy
> > > in Michigan built a nuclear reactor in his mother's potting shed
> > > (which is what the Harper's article claims)
> >
> > The interesting point of the story is that is was possible given the
> physics
> > involved.
>
> Either the boyscout knew enough atomic physics to build the reactor, or the
> author did.

Lots of people know enough atomic physics to build a reactor, in
theory. That doesn't mean they could successfully build one in a
potting shed, with small quantities of impure radioactive materials
acquired here and there. Even if you take the author at his word,
there was nothing found at the site to confirm that a reactor was
actually built.

The following excerpt is from the Harper's article:
"At the shed, radiological experts found an aluminum pie pan, a Pyrex
cup, a milk crate and other materials strewn about, contaminated at up
to 1000 times the normal levels of background radiation. Because some
of this could be moved around by wind and rain, conditions at the
site, according to an EPA memo, "present an imminent endangerment to
public health.""

1000 times background radiation in someone's backyard is perhaps a
matter of environmental concern, but it really doesn't seem like that
much for a contaminated item in a research environment.

Dave

Relevant Pages